Free will vs. coerced choice

[Zzyzx]

.
According to CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry), free will is:

Free will is the ability to make choices without external coersion [sic].
https://carm.org/what-is-free-will

Coercion is defined as: the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

If a person is told they are free to choose to do or not do something but if they choose to do it they and their family will be tortured, imprisoned and/or executed, have they been coerced by intimidation or threat? Do they make a free will choice in that instance?

If a person is told that they are free to choose to worship one of the proposed gods or not, but if they choose not they will suffer unpleasant eternal consequences (or whatever the threat), have they been coerced by intimidation or threat?

Where, exactly, does free will (choice free of coercion) apply according to Christian beliefs?

[ttruscott]

FREE WILL

1.
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
https://www.google.fr/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=an7 ... =free+will+

the ability to choose between different possible courses of action
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

the faculty of freedom of choice.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101 ... &p=par#h=4

JW

I'm confused: does your definition support Z's question or deny it?

I leave it for readers to decide if a coerced decision is still "free will".

Is a coerced decision still by a free will? A yes or no before the explanation will certainly help me to parse the explanation, thanks.

My ramblings:
Free means uncoerced. A coerced decision is a forced decision with the free-ness of will held in abeyance, no? A free will decision to accept being coerced and so choose in favour of the coercion does not really measure up, eh? A true coercion would be like being created so as to be unable to choose against GOD (a coercive restraint) or to see GOD in all HIS glory and then decide if HE is GOD or not - - a true coercion denies the possibility of choosing differently.

Becoming enslaved / addicted to evil which Jesus tells us happens to everyone who sins, must surely mean that our minds, our decision making, is all clouded by the taint of evil such that we are coerced to choose differently than we would be able to choose if we weren't addicted, especially in the realm of accepting our own evil and repenting truly. This taint of evil makes it impossible for any decision to be actually righteous which is the meaning of a GODly good, a perfect good without any taint or aroma of evil.

[Justin108]

One can be coerced, but this is still a freewill choice. Do this or Ill punish you still gives me the choice to do X or take my lumps for refusing.

Isn't the go-to explanation for why God doesn't intervene in cases of rape and murder that "we have free will"? If this is not the case, why does God sit idly by while children are being raped and murdered?

[JLB32168]

Believe that the earth once stopped rotating for a day and then restarted, that a man once rode around in the belly of a large fish for several days as if in a sea going taxi, that hordes . . .

. . . none of which answers the question of whether or not coercion voids freewill.

Isn't the go-to explanation for why God doesn't intervene in cases of rape and murder that "we have free will"? If this is not the case, why does God sit idly by while children are being raped and murdered?

Man is created w/free will because it is the best way of creating man and God is constrained such that He cannot do less than what is the highest good. Automatons have no moral quality assigned to their actions (calculators arent praised for their integrity); therefore, what we might think of as good loses all meaning. That means that man being created with freewill trumps its opposite. Of course, the propensity to do great good also entails the ability to do great evil. Such is the nature of fallen man.

[ttruscott]

Man is created w/free will because it is the best way of creating man...

To pad this out a bit:
OUR free will is an absolute necessity to ensure that:
1. we are truly guilty of sin. No choice = no guilt.
2. GOD is at arm's length from the creation of evil. HE never creates that which HE hates but HE did allow us to create it.
3. we are able to fulfill HIS purpose in our creation, that is, a communion of holy love in the heavenly marriage for ever. No free will = no holiness, no love, no real marriage.

But being enslaved to sin means our free will is abrogated by evil and constrained. Therefore it is no great leap to accept our time of free will was before our conception on earth...not here on earth at least until we are reborn, renewed in our minds with a return of our free will when sin's control is ended.

[Justin108]

Isn't the go-to explanation for why God doesn't intervene in cases of rape and murder that "we have free will"? If this is not the case, why does God sit idly by while children are being raped and murdered?

Man is created w/free will because it is the best way of creating man and God is constrained such that He cannot do less than what is the highest good. Automatons have no moral quality assigned to their actions (calculators arent praised for their integrity); therefore, what we might think of as good loses all meaning. That means that man being created with freewill trumps its opposite. Of course, the propensity to do great good also entails the ability to do great evil. Such is the nature of fallen man.

I never said God should turn man into automatons. What I'm saying is if God were to stop a rapist by, say, having his eyes explode in his head or something, God would save a victim without affecting free will

[JLB32168]

I never said God should turn man into automatons. What I'm saying is if God were to stop a rapist by, say, having his eyes explode in his head or something, God would save a victim without affecting free will

So God doesnt generally do that and from that we should infer . . .

What exactly?

[Justin108]

I never said God should turn man into automatons. What I'm saying is if God were to stop a rapist by, say, having his eyes explode in his head or something, God would save a victim without affecting free will

So God doesnt generally do that and from that we should infer . . .

What exactly?

That God allows evil to happen. Usually the excuse for why God allows this is because "free will". But as you explained, intervention would not violate free will. So without the free will excuse, why does God not intervene during acts of evil?

[JLB32168]

That God allows evil to happen.

Is this supposed to be earth shattering news? Im sorry to disappoint.

So without the free will excuse, why does God not intervene during acts of evil?

I dont know, but Im not sure why this is supposed to move me to disabuse myself of my religion.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 28 by JLB32168]

Typically, if a person remains indifferent while witnessing an evil act like the rape of a child and does not intervene despite having the power to do so, that person is considered to be evil. Would you not agree? If you witnessed a child being raped, would you just walk away and let it happen?

[JLB32168]

Typically, if a person remains indifferent while witnessing an evil act like the rape of a child and does not intervene despite having the power to do so, that person is considered to be evil. Would you not agree?

Yes, I would agree; however, I accept that such tragedies accomplish an inscrutable greater good.

Can you tell me the value of the argument Your god, in allowing evil things to happen w/o intervening, is an evil god? Is it supposed to dissuade theists from maintaining their faith in God?